Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little doubt that, today, most disciplines are increasingly attentive to ethical questions, but it is in biology and medicine that this phenomenon has become most evident.A new discipline, bioethics, has been conceived in order to face the troublesome questions raised by recent developments in bio-medical sciences.In a matter of a few decades, an increasing number of research centers specialized in bioethics or mainly oriented towards bioethical questions have been created.At the same time, a number of analyses concerning previously unsuspected bioethical problems have been discussed in specialized conferences and diffused in media of every stripe.When considering this phenomenon, one might wonder whether a parallel development in architecture should be expected.Why have we not witnessed the birth and rapid development of a new "archit-ethics" devoted to the analysis and discussion of ethical problems raised by architecture?After all, an increasing number of architects and theoreticians of architecture have convincingly drawn attention to the ethical dimensions of their art.One might think that the absence of such a development is due to the fact that architecture is an art rather than a science, the former being, by its very nature, committed to aesthetical rather than ethical values, as was repeatedly claimed by the advocates of art for art's sake.However, whether or not we agree with the latter doctrine, this would be to forget that architecture is very different from other arts, since its function is to create places and contexts in which social life goes on.Architect's works have such an impact on the way people behave that the development of a new field devoted to the analysis of problems associated with this impact does not appear implausible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".